sedan hp wars & high gas prices??

[imported_Aurora40]

Did you read my posts? I pointed out some very negative effects of CAFE standards, and I think I made it pretty clear they are not the total answer. I also pointed out in a previous post that the 500 hp 32 mpg car doesn't exist.

Yes, I did see that. But you also seem to say that the technology is there now. That if CAFE were raised, cars would just, bang, get better mileage with no power or cost penalty.

GM, DCX, and Toyota have taken strides in developing engines that can shut off banks of cylinders when cruising. This in itself is one example of technology that has been developed to satisfy both the consumers desire for hp and the governments desire to up mpg. I think it's pretty impressive stuff!

Yup, and it happens with no government intervention...

As with anything, there is ramp up time when tackling a new venture.

There was no ramp up time. Car power output took a huge hit. And stayed hit for many years. It wasn't some ramp up on the auto industries part that moved computer technology forward. The auto industry just had to wait until that kind of technology existed. The computer revolution wasn't spurred on by CAFE. Like I said, there's no magic wand. If you raise it now, output will take a hit. Maybe it will come back in short time, maybe it will take decades. Who knows when the next big tech thing will be here...



If you feel that increasing power instead of economy isn't the way to go, you don't have to go that way. There are many cars available on the market that make less than 200hp and get much more than 30mpg. Go buy one. They don't have to raise CAFE for you to do that. Basically what you are saying is you have an opinion on how much power is "enough", and everyone should be forced to draw the line where you do.

 

[imported_Amused]

Yup, and it happens with no government intervention...

I don't think this is completely true...auto makers don't just do things for the present, especially when they see the rise in standards 2-3 years down the line. Obviously, they want to improve their efficiency and offer a better product, but you better believe that the future regulations gave them a stiff push in the back.

There was no ramp up time. Car power output took a huge hit. And stayed hit for many years. It wasn't some ramp up on the auto industries part that moved computer technology forward. The auto industry just had to wait until that kind of technology existed. The computer revolution wasn't spurred on by CAFE. Like I said, there's no magic wand. If you raise it now, output will take a hit. Maybe it will come back in short time, maybe it will take decades. Who knows when the next big tech thing will be here...

I think there was a disconnect here. When I say ramp up time, I meant the time it takes for the industry to get up to speed, hence there was ramp up time. You're telling an industry that had little focus on efficiency and emissions to go full bore on it. Of course it took them time to research and develop whatever they could at the time to meet the new regulations. And without the help of advanced computers etc, they weren't able to produce equivalent output numbers until they got the ball rolling. Do you have any experience in manufacturing or design? I've spent 4 years the foam manufacturing industry early in my career seeing this first hand on top of going through the process in various college internships. Therefore, standards aren't set for the immediate and are forecast for years down the line...you need to factor for ramp up, even with today's advanced technology.

If you feel that increasing power instead of economy isn't the way to go, you don't have to go that way. There are many cars available on the market that make less than 200hp and get much more than 30mpg. Go buy one. They don't have to raise CAFE for you to do that. Basically what you are saying is you have an opinion on how much power is "enough", and everyone should be forced to draw the line where you do.

With the uncertainty surrounding the oil industry and oil supply, wouldn't it be responsible to consider the future a bit more than we do presently? Also, I never stated I wanted less power. I stated "giving up 20-30hp for a more environmentally friendly car isn't unreasonable". And it's certain the lost hp would reappear in the not too distant future, because the industry will find a way to deliver. Who knows, it may even be possible for them to meet the new regulations without sacrificing the output numbers.

 

[topnotchtouch]

With the uncertainty surrounding the oil industry and oil supply, wouldn't it be responsible to consider the future a bit more than we do presently? Also, I never stated I wanted less power. I stated "giving up 20-30hp for a more environmentally friendly car isn't unreasonable". And it's certain the lost hp would reappear in the not too distant future, because the industry will find a way to deliver. Who knows, it may even be possible for them to meet the new regulations without sacrificing the output numbers.

Seems kinda hipocritical though don't ya think to be preaching this so hard when you drive a car that would need a pretty strong tailwind to hit 30mpg on the highway?

 

[TriumphGT6]

The technology has been out there to improve mileage, but some of its implementation has been terrible. The Cadillac 8-6-4 was one of the biggest flops in american auto history. However, the idea behind the tech was sound; turn off cylinders when they aren't needed.



A common point overlooked is aerodynamics in designing a car. Cars today could be quite a bit more aerodynamic and achieve a lower CoD.



My 1987 Corvette Convertible gets 18 when I drive it real hard, 26 when I'm going about 80 - 85 on the highway. When I drive it hard, I mean going from dead stops up to 100+mph(one day a month the car gets opened up on a local cruise). This is a 350 V8 w/ an automatic transmission. I get good mileage because the car has a low CoD and is a little more than idling on the highway. This is on 1980's technology w/ the GM recommended 87 octane gas.



The new Vettes get even better gas mileage than that. I know a guy that gets high 20s with a supercharged 6sp 99 Vert. He gets low 20's on the local romps.



The tech is out there, it is just waiting to be utilized.



GT6

 

[imported_Amused]

Seems kinda hipocritical though don't ya think to be preaching this so hard when you drive a car that would need a pretty strong tailwind to hit 30mpg on the highway?

I dont' think I'm being hypocritical at all. I made a choice of what was offered on the market at the current regulations. If the regulations deemed it so that what was offered had less power, then I'd happily choose from that pool of cars. I never said I didn't like fun powerful cars. I've been saying that I wouldn't think it'd be unreasonable to sacrifice a little hp for a more environmentally friendly car. How am I being hypocritical? Have I been telling people to buy econo boxes? Nope. I've been having a healthy debate with others about having the government pick up the slack in order to nudge the auto industry toward developing vehicles that achieve lower emissions and better fuel economy(which I don't think affects our freedom of choice or diminishes our pool of fun to drive cars).

 

[imported_Aurora40]

Also, I never stated I wanted less power.

Your first post in this thread:

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE HP a the ability to haul ***, I do so daily in my Rex, but am I willing to give some of it up to better the environment and lessen our usage of fossil fuels, damn straight I am!

The "ramp up" time isn't really certain. To take one example, in 1968 the federal government started limiting emissions from vehicles. By 1971 this led to the removal of lead from gasoline. Look at a 1970 LT1 Corvette that made 370 gross horsepower. From that time, it wasn't until 1992 that a 350ci Corvette motor made similar power at a reasonably comparable price point (albeit in 300hp net form). That's a 22 year ramp-up time covering the gap between real technology and government wand waving.



Anyway, it sounds like we agree to disagree.

 

[imported_Aurora40]

The tech is out there, it is just waiting to be utilized.

Well, in your examples it already is utilized. Yet none of those cars would qualify for a 32mpg CAFE requirement, and would need other cars to average out for it. They would quite likely qualify for a guzzler tax, and if they disallow vehicles instead of taxing them, it would no longer be saleable. Scaling up the current guzzler threshold proportionally to the CAFE boost suggested would mean anything below 26.1mpg would be taxed.



The regular Corvette at 18/28 mpg does not even come in on the happy side of the 27.5 mpg CAFE requirement currently since that measures combined economy.

 

[imported_Aurora40]

Also, I'm curious... For those that think you should limit other people's choices to save gasoline, how do you feel about simply reinstating the 55mph national speed limit? Why not make a decision about how fast is "enough" for people in order to save gas?



And I'm curious what you think of the manufacturers that don't meet the current CAFE requirements? Are they just not concerned about our environment? Or are they unable to hack it technology-wise?



For 2003 (the latest data I can find), these companies didn't meet CAFE for passenger cars:

BMW, Daimler Chrysler, Ferrari/Maserati, Nissan, Lotus, and Porsche.



For trucks: BMW, Kia and Porshe

 

[Tasty]

Also, I'm curious... For those that think you should limit other people's choices to save gasoline, how do you feel about simply reinstating the 55mph national speed limit? Why not make a decision about how fast is "enough" for people in order to save gas?



And I'm curious what you think of the manufacturers that don't meet the current CAFE requirements? Are they just not concerned about our environment? Or are they unable to hack it technology-wise?



For 2003 (the latest data I can find), these companies didn't meet CAFE for passenger cars:

BMW, Daimler Chrysler, Ferrari/Maserati, Nissan, Lotus, and Porsche.



For trucks: BMW, Kia and Porshe

Who here has said they want to limit other people's choices? All I see being said is that some auto makers need to move forward instead of in reverse with the energy situation the way it is globally.



Ferrari/Maserati didn't make it!? What a shocker! I see more current stats on the NHTSA site, and it looks like some of those companies you list are now in compliance. They have data up to 2005 posted.



Once again, why were speed limits mandated in the 70s? Energy crisis. Don't think stuff like that won't happen again if things go downhill.

 

[imported_Amused]

Your first post in this thread:

Yes, I said that and I stand by what I said. Let me quote myself...

"...but am I willing to give some of it up to better the environment and lessen our usage of fossil fuels, damn straight I am"

I believe I said I was willing to give up some hp, I didn't say I wanted to. There's a difference.

 

[imported_Amused]

The "ramp up" time isn't really certain. To take one example, in 1968 the federal government started limiting emissions from vehicles. By 1971 this led to the removal of lead from gasoline. Look at a 1970 LT1 Corvette that made 370 gross horsepower. From that time, it wasn't until 1992 that a 350ci Corvette motor made similar power at a reasonably comparable price point (albeit in 300hp net form). That's a 22 year ramp-up time covering the gap between real technology and government wand waving.

I'll give you that my knowledge of the evolution of the vette is lacking. All I really know of that era's vette was that it was pretty dumpy and uninspiring.

With respect to ramp up time, we are facing similar oil problems in a different time. Oil prices are what?...200%+ of what they were in the '80s and causing strife across the globe, while technology today is "alien-esque" compared to the '70s and '80s. Ramp up would be significantly reduced now compared to then. I don't think you can disagree with that. In a sense, we're not asking them to redefine the wheel like we did back then, but to make the wheel roll more smoothly.

 

[imported_themightytimmah]

Also, I'm curious... For those that think you should limit other people's choices to save gasoline, how do you feel about simply reinstating the 55mph national speed limit? Why not make a decision about how fast is "enough" for people in order to save gas?

Ugh, that's a scary thought. Fortuneatly, I think it would be political suicide (and rightfully so) for anyone to propose a 55MPH speed limit.



What bothers me is that we are not putting more money into coal gasification, improved drilling techniques, etc as an alternative to importing gas. I think that cutting dependancy on Middle Eastern Oil is a critical and immediate need, whereas cutting dependancy on fossil fuels overall is something that we will need a couple generations to do without seriously affecting quality of life.

 

[imported_Aurora40]

All I really know of that era's vette was that it was pretty dumpy and uninspiring.

Heheh, name a car from that era that met federal regulations and wasn't dumpy and uninspiring. Or one that wouldn't get smoked at the dragstrip by an Accord.

Who here has said they want to limit other people's choices? All I see being said is that some auto makers need to move forward instead of in reverse with the energy situation the way it is globally.

You are saying it. Are you suggesting raising the CAFE standard will result in absolutely no changes to the vehicles available for purchase? If so, you are limiting people's choices by making some current choices unavailable. If no, then what's the point of raising it?

Ferrari/Maserati didn't make it!? What a shocker! I see more current stats on the NHTSA site, and it looks like some of those companies you list are now in compliance. They have data up to 2005 posted.



Once again, why were speed limits mandated in the 70s? Energy crisis. Don't think stuff like that won't happen again if things go downhill.

I see, they had the '05 data listed differently than the rest. Looks like BMW, DaimlerChrysler (imports), Nissan, Porsche, and of course Ferrari/Maserati didn't make it. For trucks, Porsche and VW didn't make it.



I know why the speed limits were enacted. That was the whole point of mentioning it. It's someone drawing a line and deciding their opinion is good enough for everyone. Someone saying 55mph is enough when there's a fuel concern. Much like you are saying that some level of horsepower is enough when it could mean better economy.

 

[Tasty]

This is uninspiring? :LOLOL

I'll tell you what IS inspiring...this picture inspired me to laugh very hard. Just step back and take it in for a moment.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

Lol...that's the Olds version of the Nova? Looks like it says Omega on the fender, that was the name of the X-body Olds if I recall...so that seems right.

 

[WSUcommuter]

I think that cutting dependancy on Middle Eastern Oil is a critical and immediate need, whereas cutting dependancy on fossil fuels overall is something that we will need a couple generations to do without seriously affecting quality of life.

I think that cutting dependency on fossil fuels overall is something that we will need to do ASAP before it seriously starts affecting the quality of life. I think we're VERY close to having this happen already!

 

[WSUcommuter]

As for the consumer buying gas guzzlers when prices get high... in my neck of the woods the big trucks are sitting outside for sale. Dealers are offering HUGE rebates on the big V-8/V-10 trucks as well as gimmicks like "free gas for a year" just to move them out.



Meanwhile, certified pre-owned cars such as the Civic and Corolla are selling on used lots often very close to what they wanted for them new. The rebates and discounts formerly offered are not to be found when buying new.

 

[autoweenie]

As a closet libertarian, I agree that CAFE is rather disagreeable.

So, I am for scrapping that thing all together.



However, I am also a firm believer that the price of the gasoline should reflect

its "true" cost. This includes cost to the environment, cost to keep a huge military

to keep the oil supply going for ourselves and buddies, cost of running the "war on terror"

(let face it, a lot of our gas money are funding the global jihadist movements), etc.

Perhaps, with all these costs added up, the true price of each gallon of gas should be

around $10. At that point, I don't have any problem with individual Americans willing to

buy a 1000 HP car that gets 5 miles to a gallon.



To me, this is akin to the safety belt/helmet laws. Why do we have these stupid laws.

I believe that people should have a choice to not use these devices. On the other hand,

as a society, we should not be trying to save people in an accident who do not use these

tools since it is abundantly clear that they do not value their lives and so why should we.



What bothers me a lot about the whole situation is that we Amercans refuse/fail to grasp the real linkage between our oil addiction and the our security.

Do you really think we will be kowtowing to Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al

if a barrel of oil is fetching $10 on the world market? These guys would be economic

basket cases and would no be causing serious mischieves on the world stage.



I don't think we are "ugly" per se. We Americans are just plain whiners.

By our choice, we love to drive cars that get 10 miles a gallon and will go down

fighting to defend that right. On the other hands, we weeped and whines when some

guys flew some planes into our buildings. Guess what, when somebody detonates

a nuclear device in one of our cities in the future, just don't act horrified or indignant.

Our hard-earned money DID go to fund these guys/regimes.



I guess enough rants on my part. )

 

[velobard]

I have to toss in just a couple coments here.

However, I am also a firm believer that the price of the gasoline should reflect its "true" cost. This includes cost to the environment, cost to keep a huge military to keep the oil supply going for ourselves and buddies, cost of running the "war on terror" (let face it, a lot of our gas money are funding the global jihadist movements), etc. Perhaps, with all these costs added up, the true price of each gallon of gas should be

around $10. At that point, I don't have any problem with individual Americans willing to

buy a 1000 HP car that gets 5 miles to a gallon.

The oil companies would be happy to comply with your request if they thought they could get away with it. Of course, they're already making record profits, for ANY industry. Of course I realize you're probably talking about raising the price through taxes, but that would put a hugely unfair burden on people in rural areas and low-income earners, the people who can afford it the least and who can do the least to change the status-quo.

To me, this is akin to the safety belt/helmet laws. Why do we have these stupid laws. I believe that people should have a choice to not use these devices. On the other hand, as a society, we should not be trying to save people in an accident who do not use these tools since it is abundantly clear that they do not value their lives and so why should we.

I'm not too fond of government-as-parent type laws myself, but realistically speaking when folks are injured because they weren't wearing a seat belt/helmet/whatever, they'll go to the hospital and the hospital has to treat them. I hope we never have a society where we toss folks out of the ER because someone wasn't wearing a seat belt. Anyway, when those people are treated, the cost is borne by all of us through either taxes for government-funded health care, rising insurance costs, or higher hospital charges to make up for uninsured patients who can't pay. That's the driving factor behind seat belt/helmet laws.

What bothers me a lot about the whole situation is that we Amercans refuse/fail to grasp the real linkage between our oil addiction and the our security.

Do you really think we will be kowtowing to Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al

if a barrel of oil is fetching $10 on the world market? These guys would be economic

basket cases and would no be causing serious mischieves on the world stage.



I don't think we are "ugly" per se. We Americans are just plain whiners.

By our choice, we love to drive cars that get 10 miles a gallon and will go down

fighting to defend that right.

And exactly how many people do you know who regularly drive cars that get 10 or even 15 MPG? Exagerations just work against any point you're trying to make. America does use far more than it's fair share of oil, but cars are improving and alternative fuels are going to start making a dent sooner rather than later. The majority of future increases in oil consumption are not going to come from American, but from China, India, and other countries. There's plenty of blame to go around.



As a footnote to this thought, technology is one major thing that's going to help get us out of this particular pit we've dug for ourselves. One problem America faces right now is that places like India, China, etc are graduating many more scientists and engineers than we are. We're falling behind educationally and that's going to be a huge liability in the not-distant future.

On the other hands, we weeped and whines when some

guys flew some planes into our buildings.

You're actually calling outrage over 9/11 a "whine"? That doesn't speak well of you, my friend. It was a tragedy and an outrageous attack that did deserve a reaction from us by going into Afghanistan after Osama and friends.

Guess what, when somebody detonates

a nuclear device in one of our cities in the future, just don't act horrified or indignant.

Our hard-earned money DID go to fund these guys/regimes.

So someone gets money from America and we shouldn't be upset when they nuke us? Alrighty then, sure thing. I don't even know what to say to that one.

 

[Tasty]

The points he made, although done in a tasteless way, are food for thought. Our relationships with the countries in the Middle East and elsewhere that serve our energy needs are worrisome. Saudi Arabia is a theocracy. They publicly behead people there for ridiculous things that "go against Islam". Those people hate us almost as much as people in Iran or elsewhere, yet we are in bed with them because this nation would be paralyzed without their exported oil. We've got to get oil independence sooner rather than later. We build up dictatorships like Saddam's with taxpayer money, and then we have to use taxpayer money again to go in and dismantle the crap that we had a hand in building. We have a right to be mad as hell at countries that attack us, but the American public should take more time to understand why it's happening and how we are fueling it and even funding it sometimes. It's scary.



Israel vs. Lebanon is getting nuttier every day, Iran won't relinquish their right to nukes now, and North Korea is run by a crazy person. Like I heard an energy analyst on the news say the other day, "We are two or three big headlines away from $100 a barrel oil."